.

Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights

Police Department Not Required to Produce Records Pursuant to an Open Public Records Act Request

Presented by the Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group

June 28, 2021

by Matthew J. Behr

            In Simmons v. Mercado, Docket No. A-3460-18T1, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that the City of Millville and the Millville Police Department were not required to provide documents pursuant to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

            Specifically, the plaintiffs sought copies of “DWI/DUI complaints and summonses,” “drug possession complaints and summonses,” and “drug paraphernalia complaints and summons.” The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them counsel fees and also ordered Millville to produce the records. However, the Appellate Division reversed and found that, although the police officers inputted the information, the forms were maintained by the judiciary and that Millville’s responses to the OPRA request—that the documents can be requested through the New Jersey judiciary website—was proper.

            The Appellate Division went through the process of how the documents would be generated. If creating a request for these documents, a police officer must utilize the judiciary’s computerized case management system. While the police officer completes the initial parts of the form, a judicial officer retains the final authority as to whether the system will produce the completed form. As a result, the requested documents were not government records maintained by Millville but, rather, were documents maintained by the judiciary. Moreover, the Appellate Division held that while it may be true that the Police Department has access to the electronic forms, it did not alter the fact that the records were maintained by the judiciary. The Appellate Division concluded its decision by stating that the Appellate Division noted that the burden should not be placed on local authorities to search for records maintained by others.            

            This ruling emphasizes the importance of consulting with an attorney regarding OPRA requests and the continually changing legal developments in this area of law.

 

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.